EVIL~! alkeiper

They have that. Its called the MVP. What they need is a seperate award for "Best Player who played on a winning team and has gotten a verbal blowjob from Peter Gammons in the process"

Bullshit. 1. There's a difference between losing teams. Look at the Rangers and Tigers. Despite their losing record, the Rangers are decent enough to attract name talent. The Tigers have shit going for them right now. Each win is valuable, regardless of whether it pushes your team over .500. 2. A-Rod is a box office attraction, and sells tickets and merchandise, bringing revenue to the Rangers. Does Ricky Reserve do that for the Red Sox? 3. By that logic, Jeff Weaver was more valuable to his team than A-Rod. Do you really believe that?

That may be a joke, but there IS something really valuable about being #10. Namely, the 340 guys in the league behind you in the voting.

I think overall the A's have a better team today than they did yesterday, assuming the trade goes through. Hernandez's season may well have been a fluke.

It's hard to justify giving an award to a guy who didn't even play 5% of his team's innings. Not that Gagne wasn't good, but someone had to get the lead in the first place for him to protect it. It all has to do with the way the team sets up the contracts. Risky players especially are sometimes given incentive clauses in their contracts. Sheffield's proven, so he gets his cash up front.

Ted Lilly wasn't a world beater last year, and the A's got a player roughly on his level. Good trade though. A classic example of two teams trading from strength to shore up weaknesses.

The funny thing is, you know why the award was so split this year? Because Peter Gammons started that crap about David Ortiz being the MVP. Votes that might have gone to Carlos Delgado went to Ortiz instead, and A-Rod got the award. So the "winning player" nonsense that screwed A-Rod in previous years actually helped him win the MVP.

We shouldn't even have a OaO thread for mens' basketball. A thread for an entire season? It's so utterly stupid as to defy words. No offense, but the way we use OaO threads is getting WAY out of hand.

How does this set a bad precident? We're not talking about an Andre Dawson here. Generally the MVP doesn't come from a bad team. A-Rod is the exception. And yes, A-Rod did have the best season. The only player close to A-Rod offensively is Carlos Delgado, and A-Rod edges him out on the strength of his defense.

As far as the divisions go, I don't see the point. Just split it into two leagues, and take the top 8 teams edit: from each league. I don't think any casual fan really notices the division winners as it is nowadays.

Again, bullshit. Caple is pretty damn funny, just read his review of Olympic Stadium from the summer ballpark tour. I skimmed over the article so I missed the Jom Caple bashing earlier. Caple, in my opinion, is one of the best writers on espn as far as baseball goes. He's an admitted Yankee hater, but he's rational about it, and he gives credit where credit is due. He also regularly bashes Bud Selig, so he's a-ok in my book.

I don't think the NBA should divide the awards. Dividing them would only give a weaker player an award that they don't deserve. An Eastern conference player is fully capable of winning an award if he deserves it.

A one and only thread for both men AND womens college basketball? For the love of god will someone stop this madness???

A poor excuse. After A-Rod Carlos Delgado was easily the next best player in the league.

Yeah, we can't justify leaving out A-Rod legitimately, so lets use selective stats. Take David Ortiz at his absolute best, and just maybe he compares favorably. Jayson Stark should be ashamed of himself for this column. Why haven't last place teams produced MVPs? Because they haven't produced the MVPs. A-Rod is the exception to the rule.

So does that thinking work in reverse? What about a team who would've had a winning record without a certain player? More to the point, how can a player be more valuable despite playing with the same level of ability? His team has a winning record? All that means is that his teammates were better. That's a silly reason to give an award. They also gave Shannon Stewart, David Ortiz, and Jason Giambi first place votes. Of course, no one else with a losing record really deserved consideration either.

You CAN be valuable on a losing team. No team is guaranteed a single win. All wins have to be earned. A-Rod did a hell of alot to earn the Rangers the wins that they did.

More like way to display responsible journalism. Many writers conveniently left out parts of the story to portray Bonds in a negative light. Reporters were crowding Bonds' son, and he wanted them to back up.

Fact: The Rangers have spent more on their other 24 players than the last two world champions spent on their entire team. It stands for "valuable." How does one become valuable? By producing runs through his offense, and preventing runs through his defense. No other player in the American League did more to produce those things than Rodriguez.

Mark Cuban is notable for excellent treatment and high class facilities for his team as well. As for the review, great job of presenting a nicely balanced review. Credit was given where it was due, which is missing from too many reviews these days.

First place votes for Ortiz go to show you the scary influence Peter Gammons has on the baseball establishment.

Suckers fear my team. Excellent.

Mauer hit .341 in AA. If he hits anything close to that in AAA, he'll be a Twin by the All-Star break.

As far as I'm concerned, the greatest name in baseball history is either Jigger Statz, or Rusty Kuntz.

I personally I've never seen anything wrong with Bonds. Here's how I see it. I have never seen Bonds in trouble with the law. He might be an asshole and a prick, but I wouldn't know because I've never met the guy. All I see with Bonds is a guy who pays baseball, and does it well. Anything else he does shouldn't bother me.